Subject: Re: A lightroom question
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mayayana<email@example.com> wrote:
> "Eric Stevens"<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
> | This way you can go on editing and saving JPGs until you are blue in
> | the face without accumulating corruptions of the original JPG.
> I understood that and went out of my way to clarify
> to SD that I agreed with his description. All I ever
> said was that every save to a new JPG file, out of LR,
> will involve lossiness and that that should be recognized.
everyone understands that saving to a jpeg is lossy.
what you don't understand is that there is only *one* save, no matter
how many times the original image is edited.
> LR provides a way for you to not have to think about
> that. I'm only warning not to get lulled by the convenience.
> LR is essentially providing an organizing service so that
> you don't have to deal with the file system so much.
> Nothing wrong with that.
in fact, it's quite powerful and goes well beyond what the file system
> The difference is that I'm talking in terms of the
> data. Some people seem to have very strong feelings
> about the word "bitmap". But that's what the images
> are. It helps to understand the format.
except that you *still* don't understand how lightroom works.
> The one thing I'm not sure I agree with: How is it
> that "SOOC" JPGs are not lossy? JPG compression is
> lossy and various camera settings applied to the
> JPG will limit the data. There seems to be some kind
> of cult developing about the purity of SOOC.
nobody said they weren't lossy.